DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 17/877,944, filed on July 31, 2022. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated April 02, 2026, Applicant on April 19, 2026, amended claims 1, 2 and 19. Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicants arguments/remarks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed April 19, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed April 19, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant asserts that the present application addresses a specific problem arising in multi-skill contact-center systems: current systems do not allow an agent to be unavailable only for selected skills while remaining available for other skills, which causes either complete unavailability of the agent or routing of unsuitable interactions to that agent, thereby reducing flexibility and increasing customer wait time (see p. 1-2, Applicant Remarks).
Amended claim 1 now recites a concrete system operation that goes beyond merely receiving information and rendering a decision. In particular, when the authorization decision is marked as approved, the approver module marks the skill of the agent as unavailable in an agents database with details of the duration, and the routing engine checks that agents database before routing an inbound interaction and does not route an interaction requiring the specified skill to an agent whose specified skill is marked unavailable. Thus, the claim does not merely announce a result or recommendation. The claim requires a database-state change for a specific skill and duration and requires downstream routing to operate based on that updated database state.
That claim language directly addresses the Examiner’s prior position that Applicant was merely restating claim language about routing and that the claims only recited collecting and delivering data using generic computer components. The amended claim now expressly ties authorization to a particular system-level update in the agents database and to a subsequent routing exclusion based on that stored skill-specific, duration-specific state. This is a concrete implementation in the contact-center platform, not a disembodied business rule. The claimed method changes how the routing engine treats a multi-skilled agent during the approved duration for the specified skill while preserving availability for other skills.
Accordingly, the claims are not directed merely to “analyzing time-off request to determine authorization and making routing decisions,” as characterized by the Office Action. Rather, the claims recite a specific technical solution implemented in the contact-center environment: a skill-specific authorization workflow that updates the agents database with an approved unavailable skill for a specified duration and causes the routing engine to exclude the agent from routing only for that specified skill during that duration. That is a practical application of any alleged exception and improves operation of the contact-center routing system in the context identified in the specification.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Examiner finds the abovementioned amended claim language (i.e., marks the skill of the agent as unavailable in an agents database with details of the duration) stores information to a database as an instructional step of the abstract idea, which Examiner finds still recites an insignificant extra solution activity of collecting and delivering data (e.g., storing data). As stated in the previous Office Action, Applicant has not identified any limitations in the claimed invention that shows or submits that the technology used is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves. Examiner finds allowing an agent to be unavailable only for selected skills while remaining available for other skills, which causes either complete unavailability of the agent or routing of unsuitable interactions to that agent, thereby reducing flexibility and increasing customer wait time are improvements to an existing business process and not to a technology, technological field or computer-related technology. Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states under Step 2B, the ordered combination recited in amended Claim 1 is not merely a generic computer implementation of a business concept. The claim requires: receiving a skill-based request for an agent having multiple associated skills; calculating an eligibility quotient for each requested skill; yielding an authorization decision; marking the approved skill as unavailable in the agents database with duration details; and operating the routing engine to check that database before routing and exclude that agent for that specified skill. In ordered combination, these limitations define a specific mechanism for selective skill-level unavailability and routing control, not a generic instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer.
Independent claim 19 recites corresponding system limitations and is patent-eligible for at least the same reasons. The system claim requires memory, processors, authorization processing, approved marking of the skill as unavailable in the agents database with details of the duration, and routing based on the resulting database state.
Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully asserts that all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 19 are allowable. Claims 2-14 and 16-18 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and therefore include all the limitations of this claim. Therefore, Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 2-14 and 16-18, are likewise allowable. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections to independent claims 1 and 19 and to claims 2-14 and 16-18, depended therefrom.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes the analysis in Step 2B addresses the question on whether an additional element (or combination of additional elements) represents well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities. Examiner finds Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Applicant has provided no detailed explanation to the configuration of the combination of additional elements nor has Applicant identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner maintains the additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Specifically, receiving and calculating data to yield a decision and marking (e.g., storing) the details of the decision in a database for the use of operating a routing engine to check that database for instructions fails to provide an inventive concept; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), because none of the pending claim limitations recite improvements to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technological field. Examiner maintains the improvement is directed towards the management of routing interactions to agents. Therefore, Examiner maintains the claims recite addition elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do these elements provide meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are directed towards a computerized-method and claim 19 is directed towards a computerized-system, both of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite analyzing time-off request to determine authorization and making routing decisions.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, for each skill of the one or more skills in the agent skill-based time-off request: (ii) calculate an agent time-off eligibility-quotient, wherein when the agent time-off eligibility-quotient is below a preconfigured quotient-threshold the agent skill-based time-off request is rejected, and wherein when the agent time-off eligibility-quotient is above the preconfigured quotient-threshold, operating an approver module to yield an authorization decision, and mark the authorization decision as one of: ‘approved and ‘rejected’; and check the agents before routing an inbound-interaction to the agent, and when the inbound- interaction requires an agent with a specified skill, not routing the inbound-interaction to an agent that has the specified skill marked as 'unavailable' constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a user interface in a computerized-device, various, routing engine and agent database modules does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 19 recites certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites (i) receiving an agent skill-based time-off request having one or more skills and a duration from a User Interface (UI) in a computerized-device of an agent, where the agent has two or more associated skills; wherein when the authorization decision is marked as ‘approved’, the approver module marks the skill of the agent as ‘unavailable’ in an agents database with details of the duration; and (iii) sending the authorization decision, details of the skill and duration to a time-off recommendation module to forward the authorization decision, details of the skill and duration to one or more contact-center modules, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites a user interface in a computerized-device, agent-sill based time-off module, recommendation module, contact-center modules, a routing engine and agent database at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The computerized-system comprising a memory to store databases thereon, processors recited in claim 19 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claim 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including user interface in a computerized-device, agent-sill based time-off module, recommendation module and contact-center modules and computerized-system comprising a memory to store databases thereon, processors amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 10, 11 and 18 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 4, 5, 7, 8 and 14 recite limitations that are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g) and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 13 recites additional elements that amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 2-6, 12, 14, 16, 17 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea constituting methods based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Claim 9 recite limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mathematical concepts, specifically mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations. Therefore claims 2-14 and 16-18 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Distinguishable over the Prior Art of Record
The prior art rejections of the amended claims are removed in light of Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed April 19, 2026, in particular pg. 4-5 regarding the prior art of record. Examiner analyzed amended claim 1 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success.
Joyce et al. (US 7406515 B1) teaches customer service and the handling and processing of customer service requests (see col. 1, ln. 9-10). Specifically, Joyce discloses the decision of whether there is an agent available is passed to the blending engine from the workflow server. If an agent is found to handle the task, the blending engine signals the agent's desktop application, which retrieves the task from the media switch. The agent receives notification of the task assignment, and the blending engine determines whether the agent accepts the task. If when the agent receives the task assignment from the blending engine, the agent rejects the task, the desktop application signals the blending engine that the agent rejected the task assignment (see col. 3, ln. 10-35), and when an agent requests more work, the agent may request that a particular medium be excluded. For example, an the agent may set certain parameters specify that, despite call levels being high, the agent will not accept any calls, preferring to deal with email messages exclusively (see col. 15, ln. 8-14).
However, Joyce, individually or in combination with the prior art of record, does not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Claim 19 is distinguishable over the prior art for similar reasons as cited for claim 1. Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-18 are distinguishable because they depend on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Placiakis et al. (US 20140334619 A1) – A system and method for setting agent cross skill enablement levels in a contact center. In one embodiment, a series of simulations is performed to determine optimum cross skill enablement levels for various circumstances, e.g., the number of agents, the proficiency of each agent at each of a number of skills, and the rates of incoming interaction requests requiring each of various skills. A lookup table is created which is subsequently used, during configuration of the contact center prior to operation, or in real time during operation, to adjust agent cross skill enablement levels.
Klein et al. (US 7263183 B1) – A method and system for assigning tasks can receive requested tasks, keep a requested-task queue, keep one or more worker statuses associated with respective workers, and assign the requested tasks from the requested-task queue to selected ones of the workers. In one embodiment, the requested tasks are telephone calls received by a network based contact center, and the workers are telephone agents associated with the network based contact center.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights